Note something from this article
with which you disagree (note: I assume that reading this paper was a different
experience for those with P-12 experience and those without. That said, he made a sufficient number of
bold claims so I’m sure everyone can disagree with something he said). Why do
you disagree with it? Did Labaree give
words to any tensions that you feel as you head down the road of the
educational researcher? If so, explain.
Reading Labaree was stinging at times; perhaps it was the way in which he framed American schools of education as “lowly” institutions that pursue “peculiar” forms of knowledge that stung so much (p. 13, 14). The author states upfront that he is exploring the tensions in preparing seasoned education practitioners to become scholars, and that this process is peculiar and often problematic to a discipline of “lowly status” (p. 13).
ReplyDeleteI found myself nodding in agreement with some of Labaree’s examples, such as the different worldviews between teachers and researchers. I saw myself in the teacher whose “initial impulse is still to intervene and fix the problem…” rather than examine the problem more deeply (p. 18). Yet, some of the examples seemed anecdotal. Take the author’s claim that doc students “stay at arm’s length from the arguments they encounter in the theoretical and empirical literature…because at any point in the discussion…the student …introduce[s] an example from his or her practitioner experience that automatically trumps any claim made by the authors” (p. 20). Labaree argues that practitioner experience is the dominant form of knowledge that doc students bring to their studies (p.20), and thus becomes a source of tension when faced with the need to be analytical. Here, I see Labaree doing the same thing he claims doc students are doing: falling back on experiential knowledge from the classroom. He even makes a point of describing his vast credentials to support this position (p. 15). Perhaps some empirical evidence to support this claim would strengthen his position. That is, after all, what he would expect from a doc student. Of course, I’ve fallen into doing exactly what Labaree contends is a peculiar problem: I’m defensive, avoiding the argument as it is presented, and instead finding fault with the teacher.
Finally, if I were to look at the author’s larger argument that the “special institutional and epistemological situation” (p. 15) facing the discipline is peculiar because it is unlike mathematics, engineering, or other humanities, with its tensions and soft knowledge (p. 14), then I would argue that this is a comparison / deficit line of reasoning. Viewing these so-called peculiarities as a problem is one perspective. Valuing one kind of knowledge over another is one perspective. For me, this line of reasoning brings forth the question of what education should be if not what it is? If I’m not to answer the question; but, rather, explore the problem, then let’s look at the organic nature of what the institution is and not idealize it to be something it’s not.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
I had a couple of objections to the beginning of the article. I disagree with Larabee’s descriptions of education schools as “low status institutions” and the work of educational researchers and other social scientists as “soft”. His claims are a bit dramatized. I agree that education, as a profession, and education schools often don’t get the status/respect/credibility they deserve, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them low status. And while he used the term “soft” as a contrast to research in the “hard” (i.e. positivistic) sciences, such as chemistry or biology, the use of the word soft makes the work seem not as important or credible. Complex, multifaceted, or even complicated would have been better words to capture the realities of educational research.
ReplyDeleteWith that said- I needed this article a year ago. Larabee’s description of the tensions/cultural clashes that (some, maybe not all) teachers face as they transition from classroom teacher to academic researcher parallels my comments on the first blog post. (Note: I wrote and posted that response before reading Labaree.) Last year I vented my frustrations about “all this theoretical stuff” at home because I didn’t think anyone in my program would understand. I feel comforted by the fact that experiencing and working through these tensions is a “normal” part of becoming an educational researcher. Following his problematic opening, Larabee gave some good arguments for being receptive to the norms of educational research without feeling like you’ve compromised your commitment to do work that helps improve schools.
P.S. Susan, as an additional example of Labaree's claims, I was definitely guilty of believing that my experiences in the classroom trumped claims made in some of the scholarly articles I read last year!
Labaree’s article provided a sweeping analysis of how teacher and educational researcher cultures differ, clash or have developed yawning gaps that must be bridged.In Labaree’s discussion of the clash between teacher and researcher culture, particularly the difficult move that teachers make from normative to analytical, he characterizes the “moral responsibility” of teaching as a reaction to the fact that education is compulsory, that the primary customers of education (children) do not have the freedom to escape or go elsewhere, and that the nature of education itself is to impose rather than offer choice. Therefore, the pursuit of education has to be moral to justify the means by which it’s conducted.
ReplyDeleteThis is an argument that feels far reaching or perhaps even specious. But I do think there’s something else down this “normative vs. analytical” path that is worthwhile pursuing. Labaree implies, but does not explore, the concept of education as an acculturation and social inculcation process. Civil, governmental, regulatory and many other community and social groups have long stakes planted deep in education because it is one of the most powerful and pervasive ways we build and perpetuate our culture, to ensure that newcomers and youngsters fit in and contribute without being overly disruptive, and to manage the natural and expected ways in which we and the world change. Inquiry, curiosity, learning, and the research that these pursuits may inspire are beautiful but sometimes dangerous endeavors that may lead to upsetting the status quo. The very institution that claims it is the steward of learning is the same institution that is the steward of the culture. That’s a tension that is at times untenable and that surely plays out within teacher culture and educational research culture.
I have questions but no answers: to what degree do teachers acknowledge this tension that’s at the core of the education? Do teachers consider themselves experts in socialization as well as individuals who inspire learning? What does this tension mean for the practitioners who live it and the researchers who study it? Are researchers asking the right questions about education when they focus on what and how learning happens in the classroom? Do they ask enough questions related to the acculturation and socialization aspects of education? And what am I missing as I state my dissatisfaction with Labaree’s characterization of this particular tension-i.e. where am I blind in this discussion?
I would have like Labaree to explore this notion more deeply. As he didn't, perhaps we can!
It probably would have been better if I had read Labaree’s conclusion before the rest of the article. As it was, I found myself irritated throughout by his tone and generalizations about teachers in education doctoral programs. As I am very much the teacher and student he is referring to, I took issue with much of his discussion. The opening descriptions of education schools as “low status,” “least esteemed,” and “tainted” were disturbing for me as one who has spent a career in education and not for the money or the prestige.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Labaree concludes by discussing a program model that narrows the divide between practice and research by honoring the values and contributions that both bring to education, I still take issue with his descriptions of teachers as students. The quote he includes on page 18 from Metz and Page asserts that one can’t be both a full time teacher and a doctoral student in education. As such a creature, I challenge that claim! Time will tell. So far, my academic pursuits and my professional duties have informed one another and benefited from co-habiting in my time, attention, and intellect.
Finally, Labaree’s descriptions of teachers as focused on the normative, personal, and particular instead of the analytical, intellectual, and universal seems disrespectful of teachers and relegates them to cardboard cut-out stereotypes who have great classroom management and relationships, but don’t really understand the big picture. If anything, he motivates me to never lose sight of the practical, no matter how much research and analysis I might do. My experience so far at VCU has been with faculty who honor my past and current work as a teacher as a valuable part of my doctoral journey.
My “disagreement” with Labaree is simply over the emphasis that he puts on the negative aspect of the teacher returning to school to pursue a doctorate degree. While I agree with most of the points that are made, I do not think that the conflict of bringing the mindset of a teacher into the research world is as troubling as is the author states. I think that the several of the positives that Labaree makes pertaining to this point including the passion and experience that teachers bring with them when returning to school more than compensates for the difficulty in switching roles. And the fact that the average age of those earning a doctorate in education is 44 is very comforting to me. The maturity of these individuals is something I value much more than the negative influencers that may hurt their potential as researchers. I would much rather have someone with experience in the classroom conducting research than someone just out of their undergraduate or Master’s program and thinks they are knowledgeable, but are actually naïve.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I wonder how many teachers who return to school actually complete their programs with the same specific focus that they had when they began their program. For my discipline of sport management – as well as many others – it is quite common for students to change their area of study at least to an extent. I think that with the experience level of these teachers, the number of them changing focus would be rather small. However, if many of them did decide to change their area of study, perhaps it would make them even better researchers as the negative influence from their time in the classroom would be decreased. Perhaps someone should study this.
Susan Dudley here...
ReplyDeleteI have written several ‘drafts’ in response to Labaree. There are a lot of things that I think I may not agree with completely but understand from where Labaree is coming. I won’t touch on these now but wait to discuss them in class.
One component I found problematic was when Labaree stated the “…contribution as scholars to the discourse on education is to make good arguments, and they pursue this goal on the moral grounds that you cannot fix problems of practice unless you have a deep and sophisticated understanding of the nature of these problems and the contexts within which they arise (p. 17). I think that teachers would agree the latter part. As well, it sort of implies that teachers are not critically reflecting on a regular basis about what worked, what did not, what happened that needs to be changed and how they might pursue successful changes. Though I only spent two years in secondary education, I always heard instructors reflecting on situations and what was going on in their classrooms, attempting to determine the contexts that cause issues and challenges.
Furthermore, I agree with Terry that stating the ‘lowly status’ of the teaching institution which is the ‘least esteemed of the professions’ (p. 13) may be a bit harsh. However, I do feel that teachers are not respected nearly as much as they should be (or nearly as much as they are in many parts of the world). The old saying “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’ rings in my head. I do not think that many understand what teaching entails, the amount of work that it requires, and skills that one needs to be an instructor.
I also wonder about the statement Labaree makes in regards to the fact that because teachers see the importance of developing relationships with their students, they have a ‘cognitive dissonance with the worldview of scholarship which they encounter (p. 19). I may be reading this incorrectly, but I feel this implies that teachers cannot value both the relationships that they feel are important to build (and which studies have shown are beneficial for student success) and the scholarly research that they will need to complete as graduate students,
Finally, I love the idea of combining the scholarly research with the teachers’ experiences in the classroom. Finding a way to include both in research would be optimal in my opinion.
For many, our perceptions are our reality and these perceptions derive from our experiences. Labaree made several interesting claims and many of them I agreed with or related to based on personal experiences and beliefs. I look forward to discussing these concepts in more depth and identifying any flaws or blinders in my perception of preparing teachers as educational researchers.
ReplyDeleteOne quote I disagreed with was “From the teacher’s perspective, the scholarly approach to education may seem coldly distant and unconsciously unconcerned about student outcomes” (p. 18). Having taught for over 14 years, I personally do not feel this way. Educational research I have been involved with tended to investigate teacher morale, teacher approaches to instruction, and the effectiveness of different educational interventions. While some of these research areas may not be directly looking at student outcomes, the teacher is the link between students and the achieved outcome. For this reason, it is important to investigate the effects of teacher morale because it impacts students and ultimately student outcomes.
A second point I disagreed with was Labaree’s statement “as a result of this culture clash, students often feel that the programs are challenging the legitimacy of their own teacher-based perspective on education, and they often respond by challenging the legitimacy of the proffered research-based perspective and by resisting key elements of research training process” (p. 17). Personally, I felt this was a broad statement about teachers and one that I did not experience; in fact much of the research I read supported the practices that I engaged in as a teacher. I may be an anomaly, but this Labaree’s statement would have been more credible had he supported the claim with research. Perhaps there is research supporting this claim, but it was not included within the article.